Back
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, R.BANUMATHI
BALU @ BALA SUBRAMANIAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE (U. T. OF PONDICHERRY) – Respondent
The crux of this judgement is that in cases of criminal liability involving multiple accused, the presence of common intention must be clearly established for their collective responsibility, especially under sections like 34 IPC. The court emphasized that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan or acting in concert, which must be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the accused, rather than assumed. In this case, the evidence suggested that the accused acted individually and spontaneously without a shared premeditated plan to commit murder. The court found that the acts of the accused were random and not in furtherance of a common intention, and therefore, they could not be held liable under section 34 IPC for the murder. As a result, the convictions under sections that implied joint liability were modified to convictions for individual acts of causing injury, and the sentences were adjusted accordingly (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
R. BANUMATHI, J.
This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 15.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 1999, whereby the High Court, while maintaining the sentence, modified the conviction recorded by the trial court qua the accused namely Giri-accused No.1, Seenu @ Srinivasan-accused No.2, Balu @ Bala Subramaniam (Appellant No.1-Accused No.4) and Raja @ Kotti Raja (Appellant No.2-Accused No.5) as conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court acquitted Partheeban-accused No.3 of all the charges.
2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that one Natarajan had a quarrel with Seenu @ Srinivasan-accused No.2 in respect of a chit transaction and Kannan-PW2 supported Natarajan and fight ensued between Seenu-accused No.2 and Kannan-PW2 about a week prior to the date of incident i.e. 18.05.1997. In the forenoon, on the day of the incident i.e. on 18.05.1997, Kannan-PW2, Ramesh (deceased) and one Kamalakannan went to the accused in order to settle the dispute amicably. However, during settlement talks, fight ensue
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
